The following has been supplied by the TUC:
Sweltering workers struggling to cope in this summer's heat wave need legal protection, the TUC has said. The union body warns that because there is no maximum temperature for workplaces many workers are forced to work in conditions that are not only uncomfortable, but that could damage their health. Although workplace temperatures cannot legally fall below 16 degrees celsius, there is no upper limit. The TUC wants to see a maximum temperature of 30 degrees - or 27 degrees for those doing strenuous work - with employers asked to start thinking about cooling measures when the workplace temperature hits 24 degrees. Describing the absence of a maximum temperature a 'major omission' from the Approved Code of Practice (ACoP) to the workplace regulations, TUC says safety reps 'often find that employers refuse to accept arguments that they have to take action on high temperatures, but are far more likely to take action when it gets to cold. This is simply because there is a set figure in the Approved Code of Practice.' TUC says a Health and Safety Executive (HSE) consultation on possible revisions to the ACoP provide a 'perfect opportunity' to raise the issue. It says HSE's proposals 'have totally ignored the issue. So we will still have a minimum temperature but no maximum. This is despite over a decade of campaigning and research showing the scale of the problem.' Pointing out that potentially deadly health problems can arise from overheating at work, TUC is urging concerned individuals to call for a maximum workplace temperature in responses to the ACoP consultation. An Early Day Motion tabled this week by Labour MP Linda Riordan commends the TUC and says workers should be sent home by law when temperatures get higher than 30 degrees (86F) to prevent potentially fatal accidents. It adds those doing 'strenuous work' should be allowed to down tools when their workplace temperature reaches 27 degrees.
29.7.13
Time to act for women’s equality
The following information has been supplied by PCS HQ:
The following
details have been provided by political activist and comedian Kate Smurthwaite:
Our
individual actions have consequences and can help change the course of history.
We often hear
about the “tide of progress”. It’s easy to imagine that individual actions
don’t
matter; each
generation seemingly inevitably has things a little better than the last.
June saw the
100th anniversary of the headline-grabbing death of suffragette Emily Wilding Davison. Our
mothers and grandmothers had the vote, our mothers had the right to take on any
job – unless it was bishop in the House of Lords – and we benefit from equal
pay and
anti-discrimination laws
While these
rights are a great leap forward for women from privileged backgrounds, real progress for
all women can only happen when they have the financial resources and freedom to follow
their ambitions. The Changing labour market report from the Fawcett Society
shows this
government is dead set on thwarting those ambitions
Thoughtless
cuts his women.
Unemployment
among women is now over one million, the highest it has been in a generation.
Thoughtless
public sector job cuts have disproportionately affected women.
Now millions
of pounds are being stripped from the welfare budget. We know cuts affecting
single parents hit women disproportionately but we forget that cuts to care for
elderly and disabled people mean women, more often than not, being asked to
pick up extra caring responsibilities.
This might
seem irrelevant but a decade ago, seeking new friends after relocating, I
joined an Amnesty International group and wrote letters demanding the release
of a Laotian political prisoner. Six months later the campaigning led to his
release.
Actions have
consequences
We might feel
like small powerless fish in an unstoppable ocean of inhuman politics but actually our
actions have consequences. Emily Wilding Davison’s remarkable story is not a historical
relic. She personally changed history.
Throwing
ourselves in front of racehorses may be asking too much but we must act decisively
now or tell our daughters that we were the generation that allowed the tide to turn on women’s equality.
Targets
The following has been supplied by PCS HQ:
Toby Lowe, visiting fellow at Newcastle University business school has provided the following details:
Kittens are evil - Heresies in public life
The government’s fondness for payment by results is having a massive impact across the public sector.
Outcomes-based performance management impacts on staff
Whether it’s the contracting out of debt collection or the Work Programme, performance by results is underpinning the government’s outsourcing agenda. Justice secretary Chris Grayling has been keen to champion it, despite its obvious failings under his previous post at the Department for Work and Pensions.
There has been a change of mindset in which questioning outcomes is like saying kittens are evil. Payment by results massively oversimplifies complex needs and relationships.
Results-based accountability aims to make managers accountable for the results of their teams and organisations and morphs in to payment by results. A classic example of this is the Work Programme which rewards companies whose clients, having found work, remain employed for six months. The fundamental issue with that is that any person or team can’t possibly be responsible for a jobseeker getting a job for six months – that’s beyond their control.
Helping the easiest to help
Management based on outcomes makes good people do the wrong thing – and those most in need get a much poorer service.
Payment by results is a simple idea: people and organisations should only get paid for what they deliver. If your job is to get people back to work, then find them a job.
Plenty of people working public services are starting to realise this is nonsense.
The evidence is very clear: if you pay or otherwise manage performance based on a set of pre-defined results, it creates poorer services for those most in need. This practice always results in gaming:
Payment by results does not reward organisations for supporting people to achieve what they need; it rewards organisations for producing data about targets – it pays people for lies.
There have been numerous studies that show such systems distort organisational priorities and make organisations focus on doing the wrong things.
When payment by results practices are introduced, workers who used to ask their clients
“How can I help you to achieve what you need?”
instead think “How can you help me to produce the data I need?”
There’s a growing momentum behind the understanding that outcomes-based performance management in general – and payment by results, in particular– is dangerous idiocy. It makes good people do the wrong things, and then forces them to lie about it.
What’s the alternative?
By allowing people to think people can make decisions for the best course of action for the customer and the business or organisation. A bottom-up approach is key, where you start from people’s actual needs. You also need to deal with the complexity of situations and allow workers on the frontline to use their judgement, this helps to develop trust and transparency and measures change in terms of social context and identity.
Toby Lowe, visiting fellow at Newcastle University business school has provided the following details:
Kittens are evil - Heresies in public life
The government’s fondness for payment by results is having a massive impact across the public sector.
Outcomes-based performance management impacts on staff
Whether it’s the contracting out of debt collection or the Work Programme, performance by results is underpinning the government’s outsourcing agenda. Justice secretary Chris Grayling has been keen to champion it, despite its obvious failings under his previous post at the Department for Work and Pensions.
There has been a change of mindset in which questioning outcomes is like saying kittens are evil. Payment by results massively oversimplifies complex needs and relationships.
Results-based accountability aims to make managers accountable for the results of their teams and organisations and morphs in to payment by results. A classic example of this is the Work Programme which rewards companies whose clients, having found work, remain employed for six months. The fundamental issue with that is that any person or team can’t possibly be responsible for a jobseeker getting a job for six months – that’s beyond their control.
Helping the easiest to help
Management based on outcomes makes good people do the wrong thing – and those most in need get a much poorer service.
Payment by results is a simple idea: people and organisations should only get paid for what they deliver. If your job is to get people back to work, then find them a job.
Plenty of people working public services are starting to realise this is nonsense.
The evidence is very clear: if you pay or otherwise manage performance based on a set of pre-defined results, it creates poorer services for those most in need. This practice always results in gaming:
- Creaming/cherry-picking – helping the easiest clients to help
- Targeting resources to produce data – teaching to the test
- Reclassifying results – pretending
- Making things up.
Payment by results does not reward organisations for supporting people to achieve what they need; it rewards organisations for producing data about targets – it pays people for lies.
There have been numerous studies that show such systems distort organisational priorities and make organisations focus on doing the wrong things.
When payment by results practices are introduced, workers who used to ask their clients
“How can I help you to achieve what you need?”
instead think “How can you help me to produce the data I need?”
There’s a growing momentum behind the understanding that outcomes-based performance management in general – and payment by results, in particular– is dangerous idiocy. It makes good people do the wrong things, and then forces them to lie about it.
What’s the alternative?
By allowing people to think people can make decisions for the best course of action for the customer and the business or organisation. A bottom-up approach is key, where you start from people’s actual needs. You also need to deal with the complexity of situations and allow workers on the frontline to use their judgement, this helps to develop trust and transparency and measures change in terms of social context and identity.
Fact and Fiction
Sorting tax justice/Senseless cuts
Fiction
HMRC cuts save money.
Fact
Job losses and office closures hurt the economy and are a long-term disaster in the waiting – the loss of expertise will never be recovered. In 2005 HMRC employed 97,000 staff, by 2015 that number will have fallen to about 55,000. Yet, after staff costs, the average amount of revenue a HMRC tax professional brings in each year is £945,000. HMRC intends to close an office at Wick that brings in £14.3 million a year to save on rent and staff costs of less than £500,000. This doesn’t make sense.
We Say
Employ more permanent HMRC staff.
Fiction
HMRC cuts save money.
Fact
Job losses and office closures hurt the economy and are a long-term disaster in the waiting – the loss of expertise will never be recovered. In 2005 HMRC employed 97,000 staff, by 2015 that number will have fallen to about 55,000. Yet, after staff costs, the average amount of revenue a HMRC tax professional brings in each year is £945,000. HMRC intends to close an office at Wick that brings in £14.3 million a year to save on rent and staff costs of less than £500,000. This doesn’t make sense.
We Say
Employ more permanent HMRC staff.
More Cuts.
The following details have been supplied by the PCS HQ:
Three years of cuts have damaged the public sector. Osborne’s renewed commitment to further austerity measures means it is vital we look at ways of stepping up our national campaign.
The government is continuing with cuts that have led to the deepest slump in Britain since the 1870s – we are determined to stop them.
There are hundreds of thousands of human casualties of an austerity programme that has caused:
The chancellor announced in the spending review on 26 June there would be even more pain for public sector workers, including an end to automatic pay progression and a further £11.5 billion in spending cuts and 144,000 more job losses by 2015–16. These austerity measures are piled on top of the £81bn being cut from public spending by 2014.
Further welfare attacks
The government has also proposed 9.5% of further cuts in the welfare budget which will make to more difficult to support people into new work. There will be a new absolute cap on welfare spending meaning that the amount of the welfare budget can’t go up in terms of national spending.
That will include housing benefit, tax credits, disability benefits but not pensions.
A new policy was outlined meaning people would have to be unemployed for over seven days to claim Jobseeker’s Allowance. That will make it more difficult for people to avoid falling into arrears in particularly for large bills like housing and credit cards if they unexpectedly lose their job.
We have shown that more than £50bn has been cut from workers’ wages since the start of the recession and argued in our report Britain needs a pay rise this could provide the answer to the lack of growth in the economy.
Osborne’s roll call of cuts includes:
Three years of cuts have damaged the public sector. Osborne’s renewed commitment to further austerity measures means it is vital we look at ways of stepping up our national campaign.
The government is continuing with cuts that have led to the deepest slump in Britain since the 1870s – we are determined to stop them.
There are hundreds of thousands of human casualties of an austerity programme that has caused:
- 70,000 job cuts across the civil service and related grades since 2010
- Slashed living standards by 16% in real terms.
- Public services continue to be targeted as prisons are threatened with closure and further privatisation, 281 tax enquiry centre offices are earmarked for the scrapheap, and ministers are also aiming to shut DVLA local offices and Department for Education offices.
The chancellor announced in the spending review on 26 June there would be even more pain for public sector workers, including an end to automatic pay progression and a further £11.5 billion in spending cuts and 144,000 more job losses by 2015–16. These austerity measures are piled on top of the £81bn being cut from public spending by 2014.
Further welfare attacks
The government has also proposed 9.5% of further cuts in the welfare budget which will make to more difficult to support people into new work. There will be a new absolute cap on welfare spending meaning that the amount of the welfare budget can’t go up in terms of national spending.
That will include housing benefit, tax credits, disability benefits but not pensions.
A new policy was outlined meaning people would have to be unemployed for over seven days to claim Jobseeker’s Allowance. That will make it more difficult for people to avoid falling into arrears in particularly for large bills like housing and credit cards if they unexpectedly lose their job.
We have shown that more than £50bn has been cut from workers’ wages since the start of the recession and argued in our report Britain needs a pay rise this could provide the answer to the lack of growth in the economy.
Osborne’s roll call of cuts includes:
- 1% limit on public sector pay rises in 2015/16
- £5bn in further central government savings
- 10% budget cuts in justice, Cabinet Office, Treasury, Efra and communities
- 9.5% budget cuts for Department Work and Pensions
- 9% budget cuts at the Department for Transport
- 8% savings at the Foreign Office and Department for Energy and Climate Change
- 7% budget cuts for culture
- 6% budget cuts in Home Office and Department for Business, Innovation and Skills
Busting Welfare Myths
The following has been supplied by PCS HQ:
PCS are spearheading a united campaign against welfare cuts alongside other trade unions and charities. Welfare isn’t about ‘strivers’ vs ‘scroungers’. But you wouldn’t know it from reading the papers. Here we bust some of the favourite myths.
PCS are spearheading a united campaign against welfare cuts alongside other trade unions and charities. Welfare isn’t about ‘strivers’ vs ‘scroungers’. But you wouldn’t know it from reading the papers. Here we bust some of the favourite myths.
- Contrary to the impression many tabloid newspapers give there are many people entitled to benefits who are in work and not unemployed. These include benefits such as tax credits.
- There is often a view that life on benefits is easy and many people cheat the system. This is not true. Since the link between benefits and earnings was ended under the Thatcher government the level of benefits has fallen from 20% of average waged income to only 10%.
- The way Universal Credit is administered will make it more accessible – the government is determined everyone should claim benefits online. On the contrary this will hurt many who are entitled to benefits. One in three people with disabilities has never used the internet.
Fact and fiction
50p tax
Fiction
George Osborne said: “The 50p rate of tax is going because it wasn’t working.”
Fact
It would have if it had been allowed to continue. Large companies brought forward dividend payments so high earners could avoid paying the 50p rate.
Tax avoidance of this sort, which is legal but immoral costs our economy £25 billion every year.
We Say
Reinstate the 50p tax rate;
and stamp out tax avoidance.
Fiction
George Osborne said: “The 50p rate of tax is going because it wasn’t working.”
Fact
It would have if it had been allowed to continue. Large companies brought forward dividend payments so high earners could avoid paying the 50p rate.
Tax avoidance of this sort, which is legal but immoral costs our economy £25 billion every year.
We Say
Reinstate the 50p tax rate;
and stamp out tax avoidance.
18.7.13
Same-sex marriage becomes law
The following has been supplied by PCS HQ:
An equality landmark has been reached as same-sex marriage has become law. The historic legislation was the result of a strong campaign run by equality groups and trade unions, including PCS, and passionate speeches in parliament. The Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill, passed its final stage in parliament yesterday. It has been granted Royal Assent today, meaning the bill becomes an act, and therefore law. The first gay weddings in England and Wales could be held as early as next summer. The changes will not be compulsary for religious organisations who will have to "opt in" to holding such ceremonies. The bill, which was introduced to parliament for debate earlier this year, stirred all sorts of emotions in political parties and across the country. With acres of coverage in the media, the debate was often eye-wateringly ridiculous and sometimes offensive, but the legislation was finally passed.
An equality landmark has been reached as same-sex marriage has become law. The historic legislation was the result of a strong campaign run by equality groups and trade unions, including PCS, and passionate speeches in parliament. The Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill, passed its final stage in parliament yesterday. It has been granted Royal Assent today, meaning the bill becomes an act, and therefore law. The first gay weddings in England and Wales could be held as early as next summer. The changes will not be compulsary for religious organisations who will have to "opt in" to holding such ceremonies. The bill, which was introduced to parliament for debate earlier this year, stirred all sorts of emotions in political parties and across the country. With acres of coverage in the media, the debate was often eye-wateringly ridiculous and sometimes offensive, but the legislation was finally passed.
17.7.13
Firms get deregulation and clamour for more
The following has been supplied by the TUC:
Government crowing about its ongoing erosion of safety and other laws protecting workers has fuelled industry calls for the process to be accelerated. Introducing the latest Statement of New Regulation, business minister Michael Fallon said: 'We remain on course to achieve our radical ambition of reducing the cost of regulation over the course of this parliament. This Statement details important measures that will ease unnecessary demands on small firms, alongside essential reforms that will make our economy fairer.' The statement lists 'progress' including changes to employment tribunals that will make it extremely costly to challenge employer health and safety abuses. Also included in the statement is the revision of the workplace injury and disease reporting regulations that will dramatically reduce official intelligence on the harm caused by work. The end of strict liability compensation, which will mean so employers in criminal breach of safety law can't be sued for damages, also features in the latest statement. The industry lobby, however, is still not satisfied. Alexander Ehmann, head of regulatory affairs at the Institute of Directors, said: 'We do not underestimate how hard it is to keep the burden of regulation under control. The prime minister aims to lead the first government in modern history to leave office having reduced the overall burden of regulation. This statement is a reminder that there is still much work to be done to achieve that goal.' Adam Marshall, director of policy at the British Chambers of Commerce (BCC), said: 'Many of the measures announced, including changes to health and safety and employment legislation, respond directly to longstanding business concerns, and will boost confidence.' He added: 'Ministers must widen the scope of their deregulatory charge still further by stemming the flow of regulation from Brussels and from some Whitehall departments here at home.' However, unions have refuted claims that employment and safety regulation are unnecessary red tape placing a burden on business. They point to evidence that the better regulated economies can deliver both better safety and better economic performance.
Government crowing about its ongoing erosion of safety and other laws protecting workers has fuelled industry calls for the process to be accelerated. Introducing the latest Statement of New Regulation, business minister Michael Fallon said: 'We remain on course to achieve our radical ambition of reducing the cost of regulation over the course of this parliament. This Statement details important measures that will ease unnecessary demands on small firms, alongside essential reforms that will make our economy fairer.' The statement lists 'progress' including changes to employment tribunals that will make it extremely costly to challenge employer health and safety abuses. Also included in the statement is the revision of the workplace injury and disease reporting regulations that will dramatically reduce official intelligence on the harm caused by work. The end of strict liability compensation, which will mean so employers in criminal breach of safety law can't be sued for damages, also features in the latest statement. The industry lobby, however, is still not satisfied. Alexander Ehmann, head of regulatory affairs at the Institute of Directors, said: 'We do not underestimate how hard it is to keep the burden of regulation under control. The prime minister aims to lead the first government in modern history to leave office having reduced the overall burden of regulation. This statement is a reminder that there is still much work to be done to achieve that goal.' Adam Marshall, director of policy at the British Chambers of Commerce (BCC), said: 'Many of the measures announced, including changes to health and safety and employment legislation, respond directly to longstanding business concerns, and will boost confidence.' He added: 'Ministers must widen the scope of their deregulatory charge still further by stemming the flow of regulation from Brussels and from some Whitehall departments here at home.' However, unions have refuted claims that employment and safety regulation are unnecessary red tape placing a burden on business. They point to evidence that the better regulated economies can deliver both better safety and better economic performance.
Attack on TUPE
The following details have been supplied by the PCS HQ:
Earlier this year PCS Commercial Sector members fed responses into an internal PCS consultation which in turn informed a submission via the TUC as a response to Coalition plans to weaken TUPE protection.
PCS Commercial Sector members have considerable practical experience in dealing with TUPE and the consequences of business transfers and we know that albeit limited in practice, any weakening of TUPE will disadvantage workers.
PCS is opposed to the government's plans to revise the TUPE Regulations. The measures represent a major attack on basic rights at work and the ability for unions to protect their members' interests through collective bargaining. If implemented, the proposals will do nothing to generate growth. Instead they will heighten job insecurity, and lead to a major erosion of pay and conditions and increased inequality for millions of employees affected by TUPE transfers each year.
The government has stated that during the review of TUPE rights 'it will ensure that fairness to individuals is not compromised, recognising that the regulations provide important protections'. However unions have been unable to identify a single measure in the consultation document which is designed to protect the interests of working people.
As the government's own, albeit inadequate, impact assessment concludes - business will be the primary beneficiaries of the government's proposals; whilst the vast majority of costs will be borne by employees.
Read the full TUC submission online here:
For more information contact commercialsec@pcs.org.uk
Earlier this year PCS Commercial Sector members fed responses into an internal PCS consultation which in turn informed a submission via the TUC as a response to Coalition plans to weaken TUPE protection.
PCS Commercial Sector members have considerable practical experience in dealing with TUPE and the consequences of business transfers and we know that albeit limited in practice, any weakening of TUPE will disadvantage workers.
PCS is opposed to the government's plans to revise the TUPE Regulations. The measures represent a major attack on basic rights at work and the ability for unions to protect their members' interests through collective bargaining. If implemented, the proposals will do nothing to generate growth. Instead they will heighten job insecurity, and lead to a major erosion of pay and conditions and increased inequality for millions of employees affected by TUPE transfers each year.
The government has stated that during the review of TUPE rights 'it will ensure that fairness to individuals is not compromised, recognising that the regulations provide important protections'. However unions have been unable to identify a single measure in the consultation document which is designed to protect the interests of working people.
As the government's own, albeit inadequate, impact assessment concludes - business will be the primary beneficiaries of the government's proposals; whilst the vast majority of costs will be borne by employees.
Read the full TUC submission online here:
For more information contact commercialsec@pcs.org.uk
Local PCS Activist Suspended
Colleagues,
We have received the details below from the PCS HP North West Branch Secretary detailing his plight as a fellow PCS member and activist.
John has been suspended for 8 weeks now by HP, after he
sent to branch members a list of the 584 redundancies which were announced by
the company in May. They have charged him with breaching company
confidentiality.
The
HP NW Branch website was updated recently with a link to a petition addressed
to HP UK MD, Nick Wilson ( http://www.pcs-hpnw.org.uk/petition.html).
The
direct petition link is : http://www.thepetitionsite.com/tell-a-friend/9680124
The
petition supports the demand for the unconditional reinstatement of the Branch
Secretary which was sent to HP on 7th June 2013 ( http://www.pcs-hpnw.org.uk/reinstatement.html
).
We have been asked to circulate the petition link, and the branch web
links, to members in the branch, in order to spread awareness of the case and
ask members to consider signing the petition.
Please Support John.
15.7.13
Deregulation Bill will cost workers dear
The following has been supplied by the TUC:
A draft Deregulation Bill published on 1 July will leave workers at greater risk of injury, ill-health and abuse at work, the TUC has warned. The Cabinet Office says the planned law 'frees businesses from red tape' by 'scrapping health and safety rules for self-employed workers in low risk occupations, formally exempting 800,000 people from health and safety'. Other clauses restrict the powers of employment tribunals, which could affect health and safety-related unfair dismissal claims, and limit the enforcement powers of the gangmasters' watchdog GLA. The Cabinet Office also notes the Bill will put 'a deregulatory 'growth duty' on non-economic regulators, bringing the huge resource of 50 regulators with a budget of £4 billion to bear on the crucial task of promoting growth and stopping pointless red tape.' This measure, which will affect the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), was trailed by ministers in March when it was criticised by the TUC for pandering to the business lobby at the expense of workplace safety. TUC had also criticised the government's 'stupid and dangerous' plan to exempt many self-employed workers from safety law. Commenting this week after the draft law was published, TUC head of safety Hugh Robertson said: 'This draft bill, which claims to simplify the law does the exact opposite. It will create confusion and uncertainty and will certainly lead to an increase in injury both to the self-employed and others.' This concern was put in sharp relief this week when new HSE fatality figures revealed that while there were 99 deaths in employees, the death count of 49 for self-employed workers showed they were at a much higher risk. TUC general secretary Frances O'Grady said it was 'a concern that a third of immediate workplace deaths are among the self-employed. These workers have a fatality rate almost three times higher - 1.1 deaths per 100,000, compared to 0.4 - than other workers.' She added: 'This shows the importance of ensuring that everyone at work is properly protected - something that will become much harder if the government gets its way and exempts many of the self-employed from health and safety laws.'
A draft Deregulation Bill published on 1 July will leave workers at greater risk of injury, ill-health and abuse at work, the TUC has warned. The Cabinet Office says the planned law 'frees businesses from red tape' by 'scrapping health and safety rules for self-employed workers in low risk occupations, formally exempting 800,000 people from health and safety'. Other clauses restrict the powers of employment tribunals, which could affect health and safety-related unfair dismissal claims, and limit the enforcement powers of the gangmasters' watchdog GLA. The Cabinet Office also notes the Bill will put 'a deregulatory 'growth duty' on non-economic regulators, bringing the huge resource of 50 regulators with a budget of £4 billion to bear on the crucial task of promoting growth and stopping pointless red tape.' This measure, which will affect the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), was trailed by ministers in March when it was criticised by the TUC for pandering to the business lobby at the expense of workplace safety. TUC had also criticised the government's 'stupid and dangerous' plan to exempt many self-employed workers from safety law. Commenting this week after the draft law was published, TUC head of safety Hugh Robertson said: 'This draft bill, which claims to simplify the law does the exact opposite. It will create confusion and uncertainty and will certainly lead to an increase in injury both to the self-employed and others.' This concern was put in sharp relief this week when new HSE fatality figures revealed that while there were 99 deaths in employees, the death count of 49 for self-employed workers showed they were at a much higher risk. TUC general secretary Frances O'Grady said it was 'a concern that a third of immediate workplace deaths are among the self-employed. These workers have a fatality rate almost three times higher - 1.1 deaths per 100,000, compared to 0.4 - than other workers.' She added: 'This shows the importance of ensuring that everyone at work is properly protected - something that will become much harder if the government gets its way and exempts many of the self-employed from health and safety laws.'
Bereaved families are furious at ministers
The following details have been supplied by the TUC:
The families of people killed at work have said they are 'furious' at the government's 'dangerous' and 'inaccurate' slant on the laws protecting young people on work experience. In a scathing rebuke to ministers, Families Against Corporate Killers (FACK) said their open letter to employers had set out to 'mislead' them into believing there were no special duties to protect young people at work. A 21 June Department of Work and Pensions news release, posted on the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) website and which included quotes from insurers and employers' lobbyists but no workers' advocates, said: 'The latest stage of government's commitment to debunking health and safety myths, and slashing burdensome rules, has seen ministers today outline plans to make it as easy as possible for employers to take on work experience students.' It added: 'Employers have been hampered in the past by thinking they have to do special risk assessments for young people, and even having to repeat the same assessment for every young person they give a chance of work experience, even though the circumstances were exactly the same.' Minister for employment Mark Hoban said: 'Too often in the past, the crazy cornucopia of confusing rules discouraged employers from taking young people on. That's why we have been working across government to make sure the rules are clear and easy to understand.' A FACK spokesperson commented: 'We have no problems with making laws easier to understand to keep children safe. But this DWP statement is an ideological, fact-free, business-friendly, inaccurate, misleading and dangerous statement from the government. It is inaccurate on the law on health and safety for children on work experience placements, and by encouraging employer complacency may further endanger children.' She said in 2011/12, four under-19s were killed in work-related incidents and 671 suffered a major injury. FACK said indications young people should be treated just like any other worker were 'just plain wrong... Suggesting that employers do nothing because they have already done a risk assessment before, is not a legally correct option.'
The families of people killed at work have said they are 'furious' at the government's 'dangerous' and 'inaccurate' slant on the laws protecting young people on work experience. In a scathing rebuke to ministers, Families Against Corporate Killers (FACK) said their open letter to employers had set out to 'mislead' them into believing there were no special duties to protect young people at work. A 21 June Department of Work and Pensions news release, posted on the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) website and which included quotes from insurers and employers' lobbyists but no workers' advocates, said: 'The latest stage of government's commitment to debunking health and safety myths, and slashing burdensome rules, has seen ministers today outline plans to make it as easy as possible for employers to take on work experience students.' It added: 'Employers have been hampered in the past by thinking they have to do special risk assessments for young people, and even having to repeat the same assessment for every young person they give a chance of work experience, even though the circumstances were exactly the same.' Minister for employment Mark Hoban said: 'Too often in the past, the crazy cornucopia of confusing rules discouraged employers from taking young people on. That's why we have been working across government to make sure the rules are clear and easy to understand.' A FACK spokesperson commented: 'We have no problems with making laws easier to understand to keep children safe. But this DWP statement is an ideological, fact-free, business-friendly, inaccurate, misleading and dangerous statement from the government. It is inaccurate on the law on health and safety for children on work experience placements, and by encouraging employer complacency may further endanger children.' She said in 2011/12, four under-19s were killed in work-related incidents and 671 suffered a major injury. FACK said indications young people should be treated just like any other worker were 'just plain wrong... Suggesting that employers do nothing because they have already done a risk assessment before, is not a legally correct option.'
The government's 'sinister spin' is out of control
The following has been suplied by the TUC:
There is a growing tendency for government ministers to put their own skewed and deregulatory infused 'spin' on official health and safety announcements, the TUC has revealed. TUC head of safety Hugh Robertson said recent Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) news releases, posted on the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) website, 'have been completely misleading or even inaccurate by putting a deregulatory slant to the release.' Writing in TUC's Stronger Unions blog, he cites the 29 May DWP launch of the new National Enforcement Code for health and safety inspections, which said local authorities are now 'banned' from undertaking unnecessary inspections. The Chartered Institute of Environmental Health, the professional body for local authority inspectors, wasn't impressed. It said this was 'both inflammatory and misleading'. It also criticised other parts of the news release that referred to tens of thousands of businesses being removed from health and safety inspections/ CIEH said that unless this is qualified it gives a completely wrong impression. Another DWP news release, again appearing on HSE's website, this week announced new guidance on work experience placements. Skills minister Matthew Hancock stated 'companies need do no more than they would do for one of their own employees.' This is completely misleading, says the TUC. 'Under the management regulations they have to do a specific risk assessment if they employ young people because of their lack of awareness of risk, inexperience and immaturity,' TUC's Hugh Robertson said. 'What these two examples show is the level of manipulation and spin that is now going into undermining health and safety. This is not coming from the HSE, whose press releases are generally factual and of practical use, but from the parent department, the DWP. This represents the politicisation of both the civil servants who produce them and introduces a new and sinister element to the debate on regulation.'
There is a growing tendency for government ministers to put their own skewed and deregulatory infused 'spin' on official health and safety announcements, the TUC has revealed. TUC head of safety Hugh Robertson said recent Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) news releases, posted on the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) website, 'have been completely misleading or even inaccurate by putting a deregulatory slant to the release.' Writing in TUC's Stronger Unions blog, he cites the 29 May DWP launch of the new National Enforcement Code for health and safety inspections, which said local authorities are now 'banned' from undertaking unnecessary inspections. The Chartered Institute of Environmental Health, the professional body for local authority inspectors, wasn't impressed. It said this was 'both inflammatory and misleading'. It also criticised other parts of the news release that referred to tens of thousands of businesses being removed from health and safety inspections/ CIEH said that unless this is qualified it gives a completely wrong impression. Another DWP news release, again appearing on HSE's website, this week announced new guidance on work experience placements. Skills minister Matthew Hancock stated 'companies need do no more than they would do for one of their own employees.' This is completely misleading, says the TUC. 'Under the management regulations they have to do a specific risk assessment if they employ young people because of their lack of awareness of risk, inexperience and immaturity,' TUC's Hugh Robertson said. 'What these two examples show is the level of manipulation and spin that is now going into undermining health and safety. This is not coming from the HSE, whose press releases are generally factual and of practical use, but from the parent department, the DWP. This represents the politicisation of both the civil servants who produce them and introduces a new and sinister element to the debate on regulation.'
2.7.13
Info from the Trades Council: Blackpool Events
One of our Branch Trades Council delegates has advised us that the Unemployment Bus is in town to-morrow (Wednesday 3rd July), it will be parked near the Winter Gardens.
On Friday 5th July it is the NHS's 65th Birthday, members of the Trades Council will be outside the Drop-in Centre on Whitegate Drive from 1pm to support them, if any one wants to go to either event they will be more than welcome.
On Friday 5th July it is the NHS's 65th Birthday, members of the Trades Council will be outside the Drop-in Centre on Whitegate Drive from 1pm to support them, if any one wants to go to either event they will be more than welcome.
1.7.13
Directors should face jail for safety 'recklessness' too
The following has been supplied by the TUC:
A government-ordered commission has concluded 'reckless' bankers should be jailed for their misconduct, prompting the TUC to call for equally stern treatment for safety criminals. The Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, set up by Chancellor George Osborne last year, followed a series of scandals involving the industry. Calling for reckless irresponsibility by bankers to be made a criminal offence, the report - which has been welcomed by the government, concluded: 'Senior executives were aware that they would not be punished for what they could not see and promptly donned the blindfolds. Where they could not claim ignorance, they fell back on the claim that everyone was party to a decision, so that no individual could be held squarely to blame - the Murder on the Orient Express defence.' Writing in the TUC's safety facebook page, head of safety Hugh Robertson noted: 'This is the same as they have been accused of doing on health and safety. However the solution proposed is very different.' He points out that 'while we have been fobbed of with guidance,' the commission has a more demanding standard for bankers. 'Senior bankers should be assigned clear responsibilities with the legal onus on them to show they have done all that is reasonably required.' The commission report adds: 'Recklessly disregarding those responsibilities should be made a criminal offence - including a possible prison sentence.' According to Robertson: 'This is exactly what we have been arguing for on health and safety for decades. A specific duty on directors. We have been fobbed off with guidance. It looks like the government is going to urgently accept the recommendations of the Banking Commission, but of course this is about money. Our call for a duty health and safety is only about lives.'
A government-ordered commission has concluded 'reckless' bankers should be jailed for their misconduct, prompting the TUC to call for equally stern treatment for safety criminals. The Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, set up by Chancellor George Osborne last year, followed a series of scandals involving the industry. Calling for reckless irresponsibility by bankers to be made a criminal offence, the report - which has been welcomed by the government, concluded: 'Senior executives were aware that they would not be punished for what they could not see and promptly donned the blindfolds. Where they could not claim ignorance, they fell back on the claim that everyone was party to a decision, so that no individual could be held squarely to blame - the Murder on the Orient Express defence.' Writing in the TUC's safety facebook page, head of safety Hugh Robertson noted: 'This is the same as they have been accused of doing on health and safety. However the solution proposed is very different.' He points out that 'while we have been fobbed of with guidance,' the commission has a more demanding standard for bankers. 'Senior bankers should be assigned clear responsibilities with the legal onus on them to show they have done all that is reasonably required.' The commission report adds: 'Recklessly disregarding those responsibilities should be made a criminal offence - including a possible prison sentence.' According to Robertson: 'This is exactly what we have been arguing for on health and safety for decades. A specific duty on directors. We have been fobbed off with guidance. It looks like the government is going to urgently accept the recommendations of the Banking Commission, but of course this is about money. Our call for a duty health and safety is only about lives.'
Hands off our Welfare State
PCS HQ has supplied the following:
PCS is campaigning to keep a fair and just welfare state and oppose
the government’s brutal welfare changes that penalise the poor.
We know from pay surveys that many members claim tax
credits, child benefit, disability living allowance and other benefits that supplement their income.
The welfare state, which was established to provide social
security to those unable to work is being dismantled through privatisation. The government is
waging an ideological war on the welfare state.
Fighting the attacks on social security benefits is a key
part of our national campaign. When tens of thousands of civil service jobs are being cut, we
know people are made unemployed through no fault of their own.
Large cuts
Large welfare cuts were imposed from 1 April. This is not
about cutting the deficit, but paying for tax breaks to millionaires and big business. To justify
these cuts, the government is spreading myths about the ‘lazy’ unemployed and
those unable to work, trying to create prejudice and division. But the reality
is cuts will affect those in work as well those not in work. Just as the
government tried to divide public and private sector workers, so it is trying
to divide those in work from those out of work.
Most of the changes are being brought in under the
deceptively named ‘Universal Credit’ (UC) – a single benefit that combines jobseeker’s allowance,
employment and support allowance, income support, housing benefit and tax
credits. It will be frozen at an uprating of just 1% in its initial years –
effectively a cut.
As UC is phased in across the UK over the next four years,
parents with young children, carers, disabled people and those with mental
health issues face tougher tests to qualify for benefits. If they fail they
could be cut off without support.
For the first time since our welfare state was introduced,
the principle of people having a right to welfare is being undermined. Many of the changes will hit
women, BME groups and disabled people hardest.
Limited access
The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) wants 80% of UC
claims to be made online – but nearly 20% of adults and 32.8% of disabled adults have never
used the internet and many more do not have regular access.
PCS believes the best way to help people claim the benefits they are
entitled to, and help them back into work where appropriate, is through
face-to-face contact.
Unique threats to PCS
members
It is a shocking fact that 40% of the DWP staff who work on
UC receive some form of it and may be assessed and sanctioned by their own
colleagues. To compound the problems, automating functions currently carried
out by staff could lead to massive job cuts at DWP and HMRC.
The terms and conditions of staff being moved between HMRC
and DWP have not been guaranteed. Long-term provision of UC has not been
decided, leaving open a real risk of privatisation. If UC goes live with an inadequate IT system,
there are likely to be severe delays to benefit payments and greater staff
stress will result.
Campaign objectives
Our key objectives of a united campaign include organising a
week of activities around welfare as part of the national campaign from 29
April to 5 May. This includes highlighting our alternative vision for welfare
and protecting public service delivery, while defending members’ jobs from cuts
and privatisation.
We are also stressing the need to defend claimants’ rights
and entitlements and bust welfare myths put forward by the government and
sections of the media.
Campaign activities have already taken place – on 13 March. PCS supported a demonstration organised by campaign group Disabled People Against the Cuts
to challenge the closure of the Independent Living Fund.
Protesters were outside the High Court to support six
disabled people challenging the fund’s closure. A joint rally with Unite is also due to take place
on 29 April in Manchester – one of the places UC is being trialled before being rolled out
nationally in October this year.
- DWP wants 80% of Universal Credit (UC) claims to be made online
- Nearly 20% of adults and 32.8% of disabled adults have never used the internet
- 40% - of DWP staff who work on UC receive some form of it and may be assessed and sanctioned by their own colleagues
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)